> So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this?

So you're proposing they could be in a situation where they can either:

1. Publish an untruthful blog post, relying on public data available from multiple parties, trying to somehow explain it all while avoiding talking about their involvement in a way that would get them in PR, legal or political hot water; or

2. Publish nothing.

And they chose #1?

The only way #1 makes any sense at all is if some greater consequence to not publishing was put in place. But that would be more something like "the US gov essentially forced Cloudflare to write this" than "Cloudflare was part of this".

Unless they were part of this, _and_ the government forced them to write a post saying they're _not_ part of it and...

For my money: this is something in the news making it a good marketing opportunity which is ultimately what the blog is--trying to market Cloudflare and the brand to technical crowds.

▲

neom a day ago | parent | next [-]

For me number 1 is difficult basically because of who runs Cloudflare. I trust Matthew Prince because I find him to be: consistent and credible.

I work in go to market, specifically for businesses like Cloudflare, I can and have said "this real world situation is going to have resonance for the next 5-10 days, what is the lowest cost blog post you could publish that is related?" - because I only manage teams who produce content that is genuinely, at some level, value add or interesting to my target market, you would end up with a blog post exactly like this. In fact, this blog post is doing that job, here we are, cloudflare users, discussing cloudflare.

▲

pamcake a day ago | parent [-]

Does it work out if we imagine that Prince and/or the person who wrote the post don't have the full picture of Cloudflares own involvement?

	▲	neom a day ago \| parent [-]
		It becomes nuanced doesn't it? First thing is: to trust him fully is to understand what it means to trust him... that he knows his business well enough that he can intuitively feel things are wrong. That comes from not being checked out, so: he knows who is in his company and why, he knows the types of projects happening in his business and why, he has easy levers to gain real time information when something feels wrong, and - he monitors his business correctly. I trust Matthew because I know him, so I believe all those things are true. The final part is that trust is also about knowing that mistakes happen, and that they are being: sought out, addressed and owned. So when I say I trust him, it's because I believe everything aforementioned - it makes your scenario safe, at least to me.

▲

DANmode a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> if some greater consequence to not publishing was put in place.

Such as, losing trust,

due to this being the one postmortem you don’t write about?